I use my free will to support my subconscious desires.

I do not involve myself with that particular discussion, as I think it's pointless.
People try to use science to prove or disprove a lot of nonsense.
The argument over "freewill" is just one of those instances of nonsense.

Science cannot fully disprove free will. That is a largely philosophical argument. The worse that science can prove, at least any time soon with technology that we have or are likely to get, is that elements of our decision process are predictable and not random.

Perhaps there isn't a testable hypothesis... yet. A hundred years ago, we didn't have the ability to send messages instantly from one side of the world to the other. Time, study, and presumably technology will get us there.

Science has plenty to say on just about every subject, but the thing about science is, it isn't out there to spite your beliefs, it's here to help us understand what's true, what isn't, and to humble us of the great many things we won't grasp in our lifetime, but probably have legitimate answers. We'll figure it out, eventually... if we don't destroy ourselves first.

Science does not disprove freewill. This is a philosophical question.

This may help you.

You pose an interesting question. A lot of it comes about in how you seek to define what you call, freewill."

I am a scientist and a once avid interactive game player ( D&D back when it was truly interactive and real). Games like D&D are based in game theory. Game theory usually posits that there is a limited number of choices (known and unknown) at anytime.

If this is true, then there is no such thing as freewill. Just likelihoods and probabilities. That anytime a person is faced with a choice, they are in fact choosing from a set of probable answers (again, known and unknown). They are intuitively selecting from a set of probabilities.

Therefore you say, they have the freewill to choose one of the proable outcomes (choices). I posit that they do not have a choice, the choice has them. The obviousness of the choice makes it difficult to select other than the choice with the greatest probability. Exceptions do occur.

I had a similar reaction to this concept. There is a discussion on youtube between Sam Harris and I think Bret Weinstein that opened it up for me. I'll see if I can find it. Its long but its a new complicated concept so longer is better.

I guess this it. It the only thing listed that I've watched.

As others have already replied it's hard to prove a negative.

However I ask if you believe in free will what exactly do you mean by "free will"? I'm a computer scientist and it's data in and data out. If one knows the data going in, and how the computer program is implemented then we know what the output should be. If it's not then either there is a bug in the program (it's not doing exactly what we thought we programmed) or out input was wrong (garbage in garbage out).

Our brains (as all animals) our computers, but the circuitry is biological. But unlike a digital computer we currently are unable to fully (well far from fully) examine the wiring, the stored data, etc of any individuals brain. But assume we could... and also assume we could examine every piece of data going into the brain before it went in.... we should be able to know the output. To say there is true "free will" though would imply there is something in the machine we can't detect.... a theologists would call it a "soul", what would you as an agnostic call it?

I usually say free will is an illusion as even for us determinists who don't believe in gods rolling dice, the amount of data our brains take in and the possible combinations is overwhelming that for all practical purposes enjoy the illusion as it sure "feels" good.

Out of curiosity for those that believe in true free will... then single celled organisms must also have free will as well, for example
[reducing-suffering.org]